We've all heard others describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Most of us have described ourselves that way at some point. I've done it before, but I've started avoiding that phrase because I think it means radically different things to different people.

But whatever specific name you go by, Bob, you know who you are. You’re the sort of person who says to his conservative friends or co-workers something like, “I would totally vote for Republicans if they could just give up on these crazy social issues.”

When you explain your votes for Barack Obama, you talk about how Republicans used to be much more moderate and focused on important things such as low taxes, fiscal discipline, and balanced budgets.
When Colin Powell was on Meet the Press the other day, you nodded along as he lamented how the GOP has lost its way since the days when it was all about fiscal responsibility.

And, Bob, you think Republicans are acting crazy-pants on the debt ceiling. You don’t really follow all of the details, but you can just tell that the GOP is being “extreme,” thanks to those wacky tea partiers.

So, Bob, as a “fiscal conservative,” what was so outrageous about trying to cut pork — Fisheries in Alaska! Massive subsidies for Amtrak! — from the Sandy disaster-relief bill? What was so nuts about looking for offsets to pay for it?

Bob, I’m going to be straight with you. I never had much respect for your political acumen before, but you’re a sucker.

You’re still spouting this nonsense about being fiscally conservative while insisting that the GOP is the problem. You buy into the media’s anti-Republican hysteria no matter what the facts are. Heck, you even believe it when Obama suggests he’s like an Eisenhower Republican.

Well, let’s talk about Eisenhower, your kind of Republican. Did you know that in his famous farewell address he warned about the debt? “We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage,” he said. “We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”

Bob, we are that insolvent phantom, you feckless, gormless clod. The year Eisenhower delivered that speech, U.S. debt was roughly half our GDP. But that was when we were still paying off WWII (not to mention things like the Marshall Plan), and the defense budget constituted more than half the U.S. budget (today it’s a fifth and falling). Now, the debt is bigger than our GDP. Gross Domestic Product is barely $15 trillion. The national debt is over $16 trillion and climbing — fast. The country isn’t going broke, Bob, it is broke.

When George W. Bush added nearly $5 trillion in national debt in two terms you were scandalized. When Obama added more than that in one term, you yawned. When, in 2006, then-senator Obama condemned Bush’s failure of leadership and vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling, you thought him a statesman. Obama, who wants to borrow trillions more, now admits that was purely a “political vote.”

Yet when Republicans actually have the courage of Obama’s own convictions, you condemn them.

You nodded sagely when Obama said we needed a “balanced approach” to cut the deficit. He said he couldn’t rein in entitlements without also raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” Well, he won that fight. We raised taxes on millionaires and billionaires exactly as much as he wanted. We also raised the payroll tax on everyone.

Obama’s response to getting the tax hikes he wanted? He says we still need a “balanced approach” — i.e., even more tax hikes.

Anyone who calls himself a fiscal conservative understands we have a spending problem. Do the math. A two-earner couple who retired in 2011 after making $89,000 per year will have paid about $114,000 into Medicare over their lifetimes but will receive $355,000. When will it dawn on you that Obama doesn’t think we have a spending problem? I ask because when he said “we don’t have a spending problem,” it seemed to have no effect on you.

And yet you still think Paul Ryan’s budget was “extreme.” Do you know when it balanced the budget? 2040. What’s a non-extreme date to balance the budget, Bob? 2113?

Look, Bob, I don’t want to go spelunking in that cranium of yours. I don’t know why you think you’re a fiscal conservative. The simple fact is, you’re not. The green-eye-shaded Republicans you claim to miss would be scandalized by the mess we’re in, largely thanks to voters like you, Bob. Eisenhower would take a flamethrower to today’s Washington.

I don’t expect you to vote Republican, never mind admit you’re simply a liberal. But please stop preening about your fiscal conservatism, particularly as you condemn the GOP for not being fiscal conservatives, even when they are the only fiscal conservatives in town.

__________________

“Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” - Lindsay Graham

None of those categories apply to me. I support federalism and feel social and morality issues are primarily with the states.
Where does that put me?

Once in the states, I would probably lean to the right but I'd be libertarian on just a few issues. This would mean I don't rely on egalitarian arguments as the left uses (cultural Marxism) but would favor an as close to neutral position for that state govt, which would mean less involvement in that area period.

So I'd be labeled a mix on social, but still lean to the right still. Pro-life, govt out of marriage to be neutral for instance.

You need to add socially moderate fiscally conservative. That would be closer to my category. 'Cept I am not really what one would consider a moderate as I am not between the two most promoted mainstream choices but more a third category.

None of those categories apply to me. I support federalism and feel social issues are primarily with the states.
Where does that put me?

Once in the states. I would probably lean to the right be be libertarian on just a few issues—that would mean I don't rely on egalitarian arguments as the left uses ( cultural Marxism) but would favor an as close to neutral position for that state govt, which would mean less involvement in that area period.

So I'd be labeled a mix on social, but still lean to the right.

Yeah, I don't really think they fit anyone very well.

I'm anxious to find someone who describes themselves as a fiscal liberal.

__________________

“Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” - Lindsay Graham

The term socially liberal is an oxymoron. Socially liberal means you believe in taking the conservative approach to social issues. That would make you socially conservative, which actually means the exact opposite. It exposes the blatant hypocrisy of traditional conservatives and liberals.

I'm anxious to find someone who describes themselves as a fiscal liberal.

I don't think anyone is going to admit to that. There's some denial going on.
I mean the left can make us pay for everything with draconian taxes everywhere, coupled with lots of money printing and claim that's fiscally conservative. In a certain way, it could be I guess.

I think a clear definition of fiscally conservative should be spending beyond one's means or ability to pay. But even that allows some creep when you consider taxes because we're talking about government. But then you destroy economic growth and the govt winds up with less revenue eventually anyway.

So for me, the Jeffersonian and Madison idea of the "tax-and-spend" clause should be what they said and what was written in the Constitution—only based on the enumerated powers listed under Congress. That's what limits spending.

Also that article is incredibly stupid. The 2000-2006 republican–controlled Congress was an orgy of pork spending. When the National Review comes out and lasts a Republican Congress, you know they gone off the deep end. The Republicans never cared a lick about the debt ceiling until Obama took office. If the author is unwilling to realistically address these sudden changes of heart, than he's just another partisan hack.

The Ryan budget doesn't call for any decreases in defense spending. That's just not realistic. Why does the author not mention Eisenhower's famous quote about the military-industrial complex? When republicans show some balls on cutting defense spending, then I will consider taking their rhetoric about the debt and debt ceiling seriously. Until then I just have to assume they will keep bloviating about the debt until a Republican takes office again, and then forget about it like they always do - ala Dick Cheney: "deficits don't matter".

The Ryan budget doesn't call for any decreases in defense spending. That's just not realistic. When republicans show some balls on defense spending, then I will honestly seriously sit up and take notice.

The same holds true for Obama and the Dems. When they show some balls on entitlements and actual cuts rather than talking crap about them and provifing ZERO legislation adressing these, then I will honestly seriously sit up and take notice

__________________"And if you don't know where you're going
Any road will take you there" - George Harrison

In today’s terms I would call myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative which honestly was what I was brought up to believe conservatism was. The Job of the Government is to do the Jobs too big for the individuals to take care of such as national defense and natural disasters and, as long as what the citizens chose to do, does not harm someone else, it is not the business of Government to meddle. I realize what constitutes harm is where the debate comes in but, as with all things one must create a balance. My balance is skewed in favor of the individual with a heavy burden of proof on the side of outlawing or regulating an activity.

Also that article is incredibly stupid. The 2000-2006 Congress was an orgy of pork spending. The Republicans never cared a lick about the debt ceiling until Obama took office. If the author is unwilling to realistically address those points, than he's just another partisan hack.

The Ryan budget doesn't call for any decreases in defense spending. That's just not realistic. When republicans show some balls on defense spending, then I will honestly seriously sit up and take notice.

Grover Norquist and many paleo-conservatives have. The problem is the NeoCon hijack of the GOP.

But, this is also why, one party rule is dangerous these days. The GOP, under a Progressive aka RINO president, expects him to lead by proposing a budget and they just go along. Listen to them, now begging Obama to lead. That's BA! It's the job of Congress. We need to go back to not having presidents craft legislation. Wilson started that trend.

I say, our problems stem from using this idea of a "living Constitution" and not following the original document as intended. ( Of course we have Hamilton to blame for the original hijack because he used that clause expansively. )

In today’s terms I would call myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative which honestly was what I was brought up to believe conservatism was. The Job of the Government is to do the Jobs too big for the individuals to take care of such as national defense and natural disasters and, as long as what the citizens chose to do, does not harm someone else, it is not the business of Government to meddle. I realize what constitutes harm is where the debate comes in but, as with all things one must create a balance. My balance is skewed in favor of the individual with a heavy burden of proof on the side of outlawing or regulating an activity.

Where does the Constitution say the federal govt is to take care of natural disasters? Nowhere.
People dealt with them before FEMA and we have states and fundraisers by musicians.

I agree that we could, however, define govt as a sort of aggregate irresponsibility of the people.